@article{HBSN21625,
author = {Maylis Rodriguez and Riccardo Memeo and Piera Leon and Fabrizio Panaro and Stylianos Tzedakis and Ornella Perotto and Sharmini Varatharajah and Nicola de’Angelis and Pietro Riva and Didier Mutter and Francis Navarro and Jacques Marescaux and Patrick Pessaux},
title = {Which method of distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery?},
journal = {Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition},
volume = {7},
number = {5},
year = {2018},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and economic impact of robotic distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and open distal pancreatectomy.
Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases between January 2012 and December 2015 were prospectively included. Cost analysis was performed; all charges from patient admission to discharge were considered.
Results: There were 21 robotic (RDP), 25 laparoscopic (LDP), and 43 open (ODP) procedures. Operative time was longer in the RDP group (RDP =345 minutes, LDP =306 min, ODP =251 min, P=0.01). Blood loss was higher in the ODP group (RDP =192 mL, LDP =356 mL, ODP =573 mL, P=0.0002). Spleen preservation was more frequent in the RDP group (RDP =66.6%, LDP =61.9%, ODP =9.3%, P=0.001). The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo > grade III was higher in the ODP group (RDP =0%, LDP =12%, ODP =23%, P=0.01), especially for non-surgical complications, which were more frequent in the ODP group (RDP =9.5%, LDP =24%, ODP =41.8%, P=0.02). Length of hospital stay was increased in the ODP group (ODP =19 days, LDP =13 days, RDP =11 days, P=0.007). The total cost of the procedure, including the surgical procedure and postoperative course was higher in the ODP group (ODP =30,929 Euros, LDP =22,150 Euros, RDP =21,219 Euros, P=0.02).
Conclusions: Cost-effective results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP with some better short-term outcomes.},
issn = {2304-389X}, url = {https://hbsn.amegroups.org/article/view/21625}
}